CHRYSTIA FREELAND IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN TONY BLAIR: NORTH KOREA WAR PLAN

A forum was held the day before the Foreign Minister’s meeting on Security and Stability in Vancouver, at the University of British Columbia's Institute of Asian Research entitled "Getting North Korea Right:  Canadian Options and Roles”.  This was a publicly held event with the “expert” “talking heads” of think-tanks. The moderator was an Asian International Relations expert, Dr. Paul Evans, who is now the head of the Institute of Asian Research.  The five speakers were Eric Walsh: Canadian Ambassador to the Republic of South Korea, Scott Snyder: Senior Fellow and Director of the Program on U.S.-Korea Policy, and New York Council of Foreign Relations, Kyung-Ae Park: Korea Foundation Chair, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs Director, and Canada-DPRK Knowledge Partnership Program, Brian Job:  Professor of Political Science, UBC, Brian Gold: Department of History and Classics, University of Alberta. All panel participants were to attend the following days’ Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on North Korea.

The events’ speakers discussed Canada’s role in mediating the “international community’s” response to North Korea through sanctions, non-proliferation and diplomacy.  The stated goal of the pre-meeting was to have public discourse on the crisis in North Korea, a day in advance of the major international diplomatic event being held in Vancouver. The actual purpose of the pre-meeting was to soft sell the major military role that Canada plans to play in open sea interdiction to a Canadian audience on tightening sanctions on North Korea. This soft sell was necessary to back the hard sell for military action being made by Chrystia Freeland to 20 foreign ministers the following day.

Canadians mostly consider themselves non-militaristic, but as intelligence and military officials know around the world, the Canadian Navy are experts at interdictions at sea and are more preferred in interdiction than the U.S. Navy.  Canada has had much experience perfecting these capabilities in interdictions off the coast of Africa, as well and in the Persian Gulf during the two Gulf Wars.

Further, what most Canadians and perhaps the general population in the West do not know, is that Canada is an important partner in the NATO/NORAD and UN command and intelligence structures and does most of the top military coordination in exercises and operations between the nations of NATO currently exercising on the border with Russia, and especially in the Ukraine.  Most officers in the Canadian military are trained in a comprehensive way that allows them to operate in an integrated manner with US, UK, NATO, and U.N. forces around the globe. Throughout all U.S. global military actions, whether in the Gulf and Afghan wars, or currently all over the world, Canada’s military and military intelligence, considered the best in the world, has worked hand in hand with the U.S. military in special operations and counter intelligence. 

Of the five speakers, the presentation by Scott A. Snyder of the NY Council on Foreign Relations was the most revealing of the actual intentions of the following days’ conference organizers.  Snyder used the concept of a rheostat to describe the situation.  He said, China was holding the rheostat over North Korea, that the U.S. was holding the rheostat over China, and that the “International Community” was holding the rheostat over the U.S.  The significance of this is the acknowledgement that pressure on the U.S. is coming from the “collective” global community of extra-governmental, international, and non-national institutions and structures, including NGO’s, civil society, and the international financial community. Canada, as the host nation for this Foreign Minister’s meeting, is leading the “International Community”, which means that Canada is one of the leading countries holding the rheostat over the U.S.

 It should be noted that the New York Council on Foreign Relations, where Snyder is a senior fellow, is an outgrowth of the British Liberal Imperialist Fabian Society. Its core thinkers over the last century, especially since WWII, created the unipolar doctrine of the “International Community” which Snyder references.  This “International Community” does not include, at its core, Asia, Africa, Latin America, Russia, now Turkey, and possibly France, and India; that is most of the world.  In other words, the “International Community” that Scott Snyder references is not international; nor are the Color Revolutions, the illegal invasions, and the sanctions that are being carried out in the name of the “International Community” International.  These actions are hybrid warfare designed to pressure or break apart countries from within, who may have the potential of working within the new “multipolar” world framework being promoted by Russia and China.  This “multipolar” framework is based on the New Paradigm, which is being introduced to the world economically by China via the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI.)

Snyder, in his presentation, said to expect pressure to be placed on North Korea, and suggested it be done as a "nut cracker" with the intention to split North Korea internally, especially its elite, in order to open the door for civil society groups (NGO’s, Churches etc.) to come in under the guise of humanitarian assistance, and foment internal dissent, hand in hand with the brutal blockade and interdiction being organized by Chrystia Freeland at the Korean Security Conference the following day. Snyder also further elaborated on the need for “maximizing the thresholds of pressure” to bring North Korea to diplomacy, as a “calibrated scalpel, not a blunt instrument like a hammer.”

At the pre-meeting, Brian Gold responded to a question about China and Russia not being invited to the Vancouver Summit. He stated that "China and Russia are irrelevant" to the situation, to which his statement garnered a response from Dr. Paul Evans that he should get a job with the Canadian government.

Brian Job said this is a "convening opportunity" for Canada, and that it involves “delicate interdiction.”  That is, Canada will proceed “delicately” as a perceived neutral power backed up by the “International Community” to interdict and board ships with cargo for North Korea.  Would Canada do so to Chinese or Russian vessels?  Would Canada’s involvement in interdiction be perceived as “neutral” interdiction? Canada’s Privy Council and shadowy Neo-Cons like Chrystia Freeland certainly hope so. But that is not the reality from China and Russia’s perspective, nor was this accepted by the audience attending the pre-meeting. 

UBC Professor, Kyung-Ae Park, from South Korea, said that the U.S./North Korea relationship is none of China’s business. Park is head of a South/North Korean educational exchange program out of Canada. She had been scheduled to be part of a “civil society” activation meeting with Chrystia Freeland in downtown Vancouver after the pre-meeting.  How do “civil society” activists penetrate a country like North Korea? Precisely through the well-practiced method of Color Revolutions, enacted already several times over by the “international community’ Snyder referenced: in Egypt, Syria, Georgia, Ukraine, former Yugoslavia as just a few examples. Many other Color Revolutions, all of which are funded by George Soros’ Open Society and Tides Foundations, have been tried and failed. A recent example of this is in Iran. George Soros, a very close friend of Chrystia Freeland, is a Hungarian Jew who worked for the Nazi’s during WWII helping to confiscate his own people’s property. In an interview on 60 Minutes in 1998, Soros openly admits that this was the best time of his life. Chrystia Freeland was commissioned to write George Soros’ biography before running for public office under the Liberal Party. Freeland is also known in Canadian government circles as being the Minister of Everything.

 It should be noted that many on the panel alluded to the concept of creating the “coalition of the willing” to deal with North Korea. This is the exact same operational language that was used to manipulate the people of the Western world under Bush to agree to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Are we really supposed to fall for this again?

Once all the speakers reiterated each other’s statements for the benefit of each other, questions were allowed from the audience. The first three questions were technical questions with no substance and were under the general spell of professional decorum.  A Director for the Society for the New Humanist Paradigm (SNHP), which represents the New Paradigm in Canada, asked the fourth question. 

In that question, the Moon-Putin plan was described for the audience. It was then stated that this plan is the exact opposite of what the panel discussion described was being planned for the next days’ talks at the Foreign Minister’s meeting.  The Moon-Putin plan was announced last September at the Vladivostok Eastern Economic Forum.  This is a plan agreed to by Russia and South Korea.  It is a plan to bring South and North Korea together through physical infrastructure and trade mechanisms, involving the neighboring countries of Russia and China. Bridges of cooperation linking South Korea to Russia via North Korea: gas, railroads, ports, electricity, a northern sea route, shipbuilding, jobs, agriculture, and fisheries. Siberian oil and gas pipelines would be extended to Korea, both North and South, as well as to Japan. Both Koreas would be linked up with the vast rail networks of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, including high-speed rail, and the Eurasian Economic Union, which includes the Trans-Siberian Railway. According to Gavan McCormack, “North Korea would accept the security guarantee of the five (Japan included), refrain from any further nuclear or missile testing, shelve (‘freeze’) its existing programs and gain its longed for ‘normalization’ in the form of incorporation in regional groupings, the lifting of sanctions and normalized relations with its neighbor states, without surrender.”

The panel of speakers were also reminded by the SNHP Director that North Korea has been sanctioned since 1948 and has been suffering ever since at the behest of an illegal UN resolution, 195, and that the Belt and Road and the Moon-Putin plan were for building up their physical economy. It was pointed out, in this context, that sanctions were the exact opposite. Also mentioned was that the meeting being held in Vancouver, along with Canada’s new Hard Power Foreign Policy initiatives (announced last year with record military spending for Canada) under Chrystia Freeland, was unprecedented in the history of Canada’s traditional peacekeeping role, and that there is no confidence that Canada will play a positive role in this situation, or that Canada is a neutral Middle Power any longer given this shift.  Further, that Canadians deserve to have a national dialogue considering the consequences of such actions. Brian Gold was also directly confronted, stating that Russia and China, considering the positive resolutions (Sunshine Policy, Olympics, etc.) made with South and North Korea over the last few weeks, were relevant and their absence from these meetings is a mistake. Finally, it was asked, “When will Canada wake up to the fact that Freeland is a neo-con war-mongerer?” and “…if the Moon-Putin plan has already been discussed and such positive results are on the horizon, why the Foreign Ministers meeting in Vancouver was taking place at all?”

While the audience clapped, the panel was stunned. Four speakers responded to the intervention with a feeble attempt to change the subject.   Most of the questions from the audience that followed the intervention were not questions, but denunciations of the war policy that Canada was supporting.  After each denunciation there was applause. In response to this, the panel started to back pedal and went limp.  Even Brian Gold had to back pedal on Russia and China being irrelevant, and, as he was commenting, had to admit that he was making a case for why Russia and China should have been invited to the Foreign Minister’s meeting even though he was trying to make a case for his original statement. Subsequently, Brian Gold wrote an article printed in The Hill Times on January 22, 2018. This article, highlighting Canada’s role as a ‘Middle Power’, is served to deflect from the neo-conservative and far-right views of the government of Canada under Chrystia Freeland, despite serving as a Liberal Minister, towards both Russia and China. It appears Brian Gold took the job offer seriously. Contrary to Gold’s article, it is in fact Chrystia Freeland, a frequent contributor to the NY CFR’s policy publication Foreign Affairs, the promoters of the ‘unipolar’ world doctrine, that did not want China and Russia present at the Foreign Minister’s meeting. President Trump has been at war with the likes of the CFR and the neo-liberal/neo-conservative mainstream media outlets that promote their unipolar worldview since before he took office and has consistently promised the American people better relations with Russia and a closer working relationship with China. In fact, in recent bold statements, Secretary Mattis outlines clearly that Russia and China are the main economic threat to the unipolar world in the National Defense Strategy 2018 policy paper. This document is on behalf of those who are infected with the unipolar worldview, which organizations like the CFR have been indoctrinating American and Canadian policy and business layers with for decades. This includes the Financial Military Industrial Complex. 

 Another Society for the New Humanist Paradigm attendee raised the issue of the THAAD missiles, and asked the panelists how this would not have been seen by North and South Korea as a threat?  Snyder responded that the THAAD missiles were for defense and a non-issue, but he did acknowledge that South Korea was against the installation from the beginning. What Snyder should have acknowledged was that massive opposition by South Koreans of the THAAD missile deployment had forced the ouster of President Park Geun-hye in 2017.

What is important for the reader to note was the dearth of support from the audience for what the panelists were trying to soft petal.  The reaction by the audience, both in private to the SNHP Director and the following open denunciations to the panel, clearly shows that Canadians are not accepting the Pablum they are being fed anymore.